Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Reinhard reviewed the 5th Avenue Alternative. Ms. Bascom asked if <br /> . elevation at the east end of 5th Avenue would avoid the dead end. <br /> Mr. Reinhard responded that it would be considered, but that even if elevated, <br /> five businesses would be displaced and several others affected. <br /> Mr.' Reinhard concluded his presentation by explaining that the judgments on <br /> the matrix chart are based on the best data they have available. He <br /> recommended that the City Council consider Alternative One with an elevated <br /> section because others have been studied and are not considered preferable. <br /> The elevation for Alternative One would decrease the effect on businesses. <br /> Mr. Gix added that there would be a short delay to consider Alternative One <br /> with an elevated section in order to have a mini-hearing and gather <br /> supplemental information. The other alternatives would require a six- to <br /> eight-month delay. <br /> Mr. Hansen asked what triggers a delay if The 5th/7th or 5th Avenue <br /> alternatives were recommended by the City Council. Mr. Gix explained that <br /> because the EIS is published and the businesses have been informed about the <br /> proposed draft, if another alternative is proposed which is not discussed in <br /> the EIS, then more public hearings will be required. Mr. Gleason added that <br /> working outside the EIS violates the Federal Environmental Impact Law and <br /> jeopardizes Federal funding. <br /> Several council members asked specific questions about the various <br /> alternatives, which were answered by the staff. Ms. Bascom asked if the <br /> businesses affected by Alternative One would respond more favorably if the <br /> eastern section were elevated. Mr. Obie responded that it would make no <br /> e difference in terms of their support. He also said that the project is a <br /> community issue which has been under consideration for ten to 15 years; $16 <br /> million will create many needed jobs and businesses affected will be relocated <br /> and reimbursed. Mr. Hansen agreed that it was a community issue but was <br /> concerned that the extension is proposed through the heart of the industrial <br /> community and does not provide a good solution; he also expressed concern that <br /> the City Council is pressured to make a decision under the described time <br /> frame in order to avoid a two-year delay. Mr. Hansen said that he was not <br /> happy with either Alternative One or One, elevated. <br /> Mr. Miller also wished they had more time to consider the other alternatives <br /> but agreed that if Alternative One, elevated, would protect the industrial <br /> community, it is a better option; he was concerned about the visual effects of <br /> the elevation. <br /> Mr. Holmer said that either Alternative One or One, elevated, seemed <br /> workable. He saw substantial advantages in elevation because of operational <br /> savings over the life of the project, but wondered if the added cost would <br /> pose political problems in March. <br /> Mr. Rutan was also uncomfortable with the time line and believed that the <br /> State Highway Department was willing to look at options and work with the <br /> City. He was not entirely happy with any of the alternatives. <br /> Ms. Schue believed Alternative One, elevated, seemed to be the best solution <br /> - with the most substantial advantages. <br /> MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 16, 1985 Page 3 <br />